OUT-OF-IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN - - NOT AND NOT

second-and-a-half draft - - rough. But a diamond, really.

SUMMARY:

Quantitative Easing, and money from the surplus Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula oil countries had amassed in the past few years, a part of which they’re passing on to the idiots-reluctant, have given new life to the idiots-reluctant’s military tenure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too, it’s unlikely the Obama Administration would’ve increased the number of troops in Afghanistan but for a new understanding - - even possible partnership - - reached with Russia, which partnership in part seems to be directed at Iran.

Withdrawal of the troops from the two countries is dependent on a number of factors: (1) the return of fiscal conservatism to American politics; (2) American casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan; (3) the ups-and-downs of the understanding/partnership with Russia - - e.g., on the use of Turkey in Afghanistan; (4) the level of exhaustion of the oil-money surplus of the countries of the Arabian Peninsula, and whether oil prices would spike or fall; and (5) the ability of the U.S. and U.K. mercenary contractors to create new and cheaper armies-of-mercenaries from Third World countries to replace the very expensive Western and South African mercenaries.

The promise to withdraw the troops is looking more-and-more like an act. So is the nervousness of the Saudi ruling elite about Iran. The Saudi ruling elite wants nothing less than the total defeat of the Islamic Republic in which it sees a catalyst for vibrant political opposition at home. Saudi Arabia’s tool: U.S. troops, paid for with the oil money surplus of the last few years. For now, Iran is more isolated than ever before.

[NOTE: Here are the figures I ran into in the Arab press on or about November 23, 2008, about "loans" given the U.S. by oil countries of the Arabian Peninsula:

Saudi Arabia: $120 billion.
U.A.E.: $ 70 billion.
Qatar: $60 billion.
Kuwait: $40 billion.

Later Note: Be mindful that the above figures came from a Syrian e-newspaper, quoting a Kuwaiti newspaper. Still: I lean heavily towards trusting the figures and as heavily into assessing that yet more "loans" will be provided the U.S. to assure its stay in Iraq, inside and right outside the border.)

THE SHIA STATE IN IRAQ AND ITS CUNNING USE OF THE IDIOTS-RELUCTANT

00 Are we gonna get out of Iraq?

- - The idiots-reluctant don’t want to. The superficial reason would be that they don’t want to deliver Iraq to Iran. They don’t trust that Turkey can balance Iran inside of Iraq, mainly because of Turkey’s Kurdish national assertiveness. (Note that the recent municipal elections in Turkey showed the Kurds vote mostly Kurdish. In other words: they’re fairly secessionist.) The long-term reason, however, is that they want to subdue the Islamic Republic. In essence, the idiots-reluctant still are on the same course as their predecessors: to establish bases across the globe and assert control over oil and natural gas routes and sources. To that end, subduing the Islamic Republic is necessary, especially that not only Iraqi oil is at stake – but the oil and its pipelines in the Caspian Sea Basin. In that vein, control of Iraq allows for tighter economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic since Iraq - - and not Dubai nor Lebanon - - would be that Republic’s best outlet to break through these sanctions.

The current government structure is Shia-to-the-bone. A tad strange since Iraq, when governed by Baathists, many Sunni, never had been so sectarian. The Shia were part-and-parcel of the “Sunni”-led government. But not-so-strange if one considers that colonialism always had relied on divide-and-conquer; and that terrifically Jewish Diaspora nationalists (not secular people by any stretch) had spearheaded the New Colonialism. Iraq got what the Diaspora Nationalists, sectarian-to-the-bone, had prayed for - - a sectarian and divided Iraq.

While the Shia government minds Iran’s concerns and is careful not to alienate it – note Muwaffaq al-Rabi’i’s creative attempts to try to rid Iraq of the Mujaheedeen Khalq – it nonetheless wants an association with the United States. It sees benefits in both relationships. In a word, the soul-and-the-pocket of nearly each-and-every-visible-and significant-Shia-leader of today’s Iraq is bereft with double-agency, with divided but not contradictory allegiance - - half-of-each-soul-and-pocket to the idiots-reluctant and half-of-the-same to the Islamic Republic.

00 What about the recent operation in al-Fadhl neighborhood against the Sahwas?

- - That’s the beauty of an alliance with the idiots-reluctant. But for the presence of U.S. troops, the Shia State would have to go it alone: fight a civil war with the Sunni. That would alienate the hell out of the Arab Sunni states. Even the Syrian government could feel threatened by a like-war. Instead: partner up with the idiots-reluctant to suppress the Iraqi Sunni - - and these same Arab Sunni states would have to shut up. Our intelligence services, I strongly suspect, have the elite of those states by the balls. They don’t dare do anything. They spin-and-twirl in their own weakness. The most they can do is pass money on to the Sunni leaders. But that gets them nowhere. That money reaches the Sunni Islamists who kill other Sunni (e.g., Sunni police recruits of the Shia State.) Their money ends up funding an intra-Sunni civil war in Iraq. The Islamists, true, kill Shia too; but they kill Sunni as well. Result: intra-Sunni civil war along with a low-intensity Sunni-Shia civil war.

00 So everyone is putting us to use?

- - You bet. We’re now beyond idiocy, way beyond. Texas Oil and the Diaspora Nationalists have put us in the most awkward of situations. We’re pulling at both ends. Totally uncalled for. And now Mr. Obama is running scared of his own Defense Secretary. (ADDED: I take this back. Mr. Obama is using Mr. Gates to effect needed cuts and save the federal govrernment. Better that these cuts be made by man trusted by the military-industrial establishment/complex than by anyone else.) Not to mention that the Diaspora Nationalists – the liberals, this time - - obviously have influence over him. And their Israel wants us there. The Saudis, too. (A renewed alliance between the two in Washington, D.C., where Saudi Arabia kicks in money to the Israel lobby?) Mr. Obama-the-President has shed Mr. Obama-the-candidate.

So: no, Mr. Obama doesn’t want to leave Iraq. The promise to withdraw the troops from Iraq is, practically speaking, an act. The planned stay of 50,000 combat troops can easily be supplemented any time the need arises with U.S. troops stationed close-by at al-Adid in Qatar and across the border in Kuwait. If anything, you can withdraw the troops via Turkey, only to re-route them (or others) back to Qatar and Kuwait , without the media ever getting a hint of it.

OUT-OF-IRAQ: THE SAUDI RULING ELITE

00 What are the Saudis afraid of?

- - Their own people.

00 It’s not Iran?

- - Hardly. Theirs is an act, too. Saudi Arabia lives under the defense umbrella of the United States. So Iran couldn’t be a military threat. But a strong Iran will mean a more daring Saudi Shia community which could demand (and is) more political participation and a stake in the wealth of its country. But things don’t stop here. With oil revenues diminishing, and the surplus decreasing (at a rate very much related in part to the scale of payments the Saudis are making for the American military tenure in Iraq and Afghanistan) political opposition within the Saudi public, non-Shia, should eventually begin to re-assert itself. The timing depends on the scale of oil revenues and the level of the accumulated surplus. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, when the Saudi state had been in debt, the Saudi opposition had been vibrant. (Some even claim that the Saudi oppostion had been so threatening that the Saudi royals developed an intense interest in Lebanon. That country was to become an alternative heaven to run-to should they lose power in Saudi Arabia. That one senior Saudi prince could buy up all of Lebanon’s real estate; and that in fact they were doing that through the late Rafiq al-Hariri.) There’s always a concern in countries in the Arab nation that other Arab states (and Iran and others) may fund their political opposition.

Iran or no Iran, the Saudi Shia in no way can be a threat to the royal-extended-family- government. But the Saudi ruling elite doesn’t trust its own self to co-opt that minority into the political system. The reason lies in the fact that the Saudi royal elite has been victim of a mix of three phenomena: (1) its servility to the Cronies of the Oil Republic of Texas (e.g., Crusader); (2) its own incompetence (e.g., having allowed Osama bin-Laden to gather huge popularity within the government structure of Saudi Arabia, and failing to infiltrate his Organization, or even feeling the need to do that, even though the Saudi government should’ve been the prime candidate - - not us - - to achieve the infiltration of the organization founded by a Saudi-politician-in-exile.) and (3) its shedding of any pretense to Arabism. That force - - Arabism - - would’ve had (and had) a neutralizing effect on Shia nationalism within the Kingdom, or any divisive nationalism-based-on-sect within the Arab nation.

The Saudi ruling elite lost any claim or pretense to Arabism when it had colluded with Israel-via-the-Diaspora-Nationalists and with Texas Oil/the Republic of Texas (Crusader and Bald Samson) to finish the only competent large army left in the Arab World – Arab Iraq’s. And as that elite continued to collude against three other , albeit less powerful, armies – Syria’s, Hamas’, and Hezbollah’s. . What that elite was left with was a Sunni identity, with nothing added - - and hardly trusted at that very identity! Why the want of trust? Corruption and jealousy about the birth-right privileges (e.g., salaries for-no-work) given to thousands-upon-thousands of princes (and princesses) eat away at that Sunni legitimacy. Imprisoned in that mold, that elite couldn’t trust its own self to bring the Saudi Shia into the fold – because it cannot see even the need for such, having so de-Arabized by selling out to Israel’s people in the United States and to these people’s ally - - the Evangelist Armies of the Oil Republic of Texas.

Thus: the war the Saudi ruling elite is fighting - - the very war it wants us to fight for them - - isn’t really a war on Iran. They’re already protected on that front by our presence in the Gulf - - in Qatar, in the U.A.E., in Kuwait, and in Iraq. Their concern is that Iran’s sway over Iraq, even when the Kingdom itself isn’t in any military danger, would translate into a more vibrant political opposition within the Kingdom - - both Sunni and Shia - - to the extended-family-form of government. Again: it wouldn’t take that much to co-opt the Shia community. The real fear: political opposition among the Sunni. Which, too, wouldn’t be that big a deal had the royal structure of governance not been so unwieldy. (See prior posts.)

(Watch as the idiots-reluctant become confused at the reappearance of the Saudi opposition should oil prices slide any further and should the Saudi surplus continue to be spent on footing the bill for U.S. armies in Iraq and Afghanistan and on salaries for thousands-upon-thousands of princes and princesses. If Arab nationalism makes a come-back, it’ll speed up the rise of the Saudi opposition. The Saudi ruling elite may try to direct that nationalism against Iran. But it may not succeed. That nationalism may revolve around “our money” and “our resources” and the “squandering” of these on “Crusader” troops who are the military backbone of Israel. Should Arab nationalism make a come-back, Iran will have to decide whether to fear it or to encourage it. But for as long as the Saudi oil money surplus is healthy, not much of significance will happen. Discuss. )

OUT-OF-IRAQ-AND-AFGHANISTAN: THE DOMESTIC SCENARIO

00 So we’re not gonna get out.

- - The scenario for seeing-us-out relates more to the economic crisis we’re living than anything else. International trouble-making is softening. Russia seems to be once again bargaining away its alliance with Iran for an understanding with the United States. Note the recent meeting between Medvedev and Obama, the earlier talk by U.S. officials about pushing the “reset” button with Russia, and the statement issued by both countries in part calling on Iran to stop enriching uranium and to open its facilities to inspection. All of this, of course, would be to naught if Russia doesn’t see returns.

00 And where do you think the domestic scenario is heading.

- - The glut of the U.S. dollar-as-international-currency will mean that rivals will have money to counter U.S. plans to spread bases across the globe to, in part, control oil routes and the oil itself. Let us do some assessment. Let’s consider the theory that says that this urge to control oil-and-its-pipelines has to do with three perceived needs:

(1) the perceived need for us to have cheap energy. Here, you control Iraqi oil, for instance, and you’re able to control the world market, not only OPEC, and keep energy prices low by pumping Iraqi oil at your pleasure.

(2) The perceived need by the mandarins to control events in the world. By controlling oil you can choke off China, for instance. And

(3) The perceived need of the Oil Cronies, who are a center-of-power-onto-themselves in the United States, based in the Oil Republic of Texas, and equaled only by Wall Street, to make more money for their cronies-for-their-cronies-for-their-cronies.

But two out of the three goals are failing.

The dollar glut is such that, in the absence of higher interest rates by the Fed and in the absence of taxation by the federal government - - both of which would eat away at the glut - - that glut will continue to be a crucial factor in determining success or failure in foreign policy , to wit: imperial control of resources. Accumulated capital will seek out oil-and-other-minerals at any moment the economy starts reviving because, in essence, accumulated capital has been robbed of acceptably-profitable-harbors such as a decent interest rate from Treasury bonds, or similar issues overseas.

As accumulated capital runs over to oil to partake in the revival of the world economy, it’ll create a bubble around that staple and around other mineral resources. (Note China’s hoarding of copper!) Unless you can take Iraq from around 2 - 2.5 million bpd production level to 7-8 million production level, oil prices are bound to shoot through the roof – as they did only too recently. Besides, it would be foolish to ignore resource nationalism based on the representations by this-or-that-traitor-to-his-country. Resource nationalism in Iraq should be a force to reckon with, sooner or later, and that nationalism would be unlikely to allow the American tax-base to transfer Iraq’s wealth to the United States, anyway.

Accordingly: bases overseas and oil grabs a la Iraq don’t work in achieving the first goal - - to secure lower prices for oil. The dollar glut translates into money in the pockets of rivals, and that into good (and inexpensive) use of nationalism against the idiots-reluctant's plans. Add to that resource nationalism which should emerge sooner-or-later after an invasion and seeming successful control of oil and oil-routes. In the end: the dollar glut nixes that goal and that strategy.

The second goal - - to choke off rivals such as China. Here again, the dollar glut nixes that, too. China accumulates a surplus of nearly 2 trillion dollars. It can now buy a lot of oil-rights (e.g., Russia) and mineral-rights (e.g., Australia) and wait for the revival of the U.S. and world economies. It’s a chicken game at which we lose even as we win. Meaning: we want to wait-out China until it spends its two-trillion in foreign reserves to deny it the use of the 2 trillion to gain superpower status. So we wait for political turmoil in China to force it to spend-and-spend. We’re sure we won’t have turmoil here, only people devastated by financial insecurity and loss of livelihood who, without a union to represent them, go postal. Going postal beats political turmoil any day. Right? But China IS spending the two-trillion. The two-trillion is such a huge sum for China and for the world that China can spend on a stimulus while buying up the seeds (so-to-speak - - oil rights and mineral rights) for an industrial/export re-birth, as soon as we take-off economically. Who’s waiting out who? Are we then going to go protectionist all-the-way to deny China the superpower status? The domestic forces lined up against protectionism are gargantuan. Some protectionism: yes. Protectionism of the kind that would deny China superpower status - - unlikely.

00 Still: doesn’t answer the question.

- - For reasons of their own, the idiots-reluctant are printing money (“quantitative easing.”) They have no choice but. Accumulated capital just doesn’t want to buy Treasury bonds at this time. So you have the Federal reserve buy these. That’s printing money. The Texas Republic Oil Cronies had succeeded at bankrupting the federal government - - a not-so-secret goal of theirs. When you bankrupt the federal government, you force it to increase taxes and pay higher interest rates. But you can only do that (increase taxes . . .) to survive – to float. To enact programs-for-the-dreaded-masses - - such as a national health plan - - you’d need a surplus. Mr. Obama retaliated against being forced into the corner of increasing taxes-increasing-interest-rates by seeking out the alternative to that: “quantitative easing.” Yes it’s inflationary, but we’ll deal with that when the time comes. Or the Republicans (a new administration) will have to deal with that when the time comes - - and therefore become supremely unpopular.

The hope of the Obama people is that the “quantitative easing” would save his administration from failing, a failure which the Republic of Texas Oil Cronies had planned for him (or even for McCain had he made it.) (The Texas Republic Oil Cronies has never liked McCain, anyway.)

Just as the Texas Republic of Oil Cronies had wanted to placate the Democrats by bankrupting the federal government (in part by paying-off the military-industrial-complex over which the Cronies hold sway), Mr. Obama is returning the favor through quantitative easing. Will come a time where no one can gain control of the White House (Republican or Democrat) unless they react to inflation by increasing taxes and raising interest rates. Which would mean that within the Republican Party, there should be a re-formulation of priorities away from profligate spending on made-up so-called-wars that would take the federal government to the cleaner's -- and towards fiscal conservatism. That - - fiscal conservatism - - should pull the country out of expensive entanglements in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. For now, though, quantitative easing, along with oil surplus money from Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula oil countries, should fund the two tenures in Iraq and Afghanistan. ( In one post a while ago, I outlined what the Arab press had said about how much money these countries had paid to the U.S. allegedly to help it with its financial meltdown - - but truly to pay for our tenure in Iraq. See summary above.)

00 So, you’re saying, that unless Saudi money replaces the American, we eventually will have to leave Iraq and Afghanistan?

- - Saudi money (and other Arabian Peninsula oil money) already has. Those who want the troops back home will have to wait for that well to dry up. When it does, should fiscal conservatism be in vogue in the country, then the troops will be on their way back home and the idiots-reluctant would shed the illusion that our strength comes from our military deployments and not from the economic strength of the home front - - and the appropriate taxation to go along with that strength. Even then, fiscal conservatism couldn’t do it alone. It’ll need (1) casualties - - no one leaves unless they’re stung over-and-over; (2) relatively low oil prices to disallow the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Emiratis and other oil-rich Arabian ruling elites from funding the troops’ tenure ; (3) an Arab - - preferably Saudi and Kuwaiti . . . - - political opposition to cease on that; and (4) ineffectiveness by new and cheap mercenaries from such places as the Philippines, trained by U.S. and U.K. mercenary corporations to keep the Arabs of Iraq and the Afghans in check. .

00 But who’s going to finance a war on us that would create casualties?

- - Logically: Iran. But I don’t think they’re up-to-it. Unless we make some serious concessions towards the Russians - - then the Russians. (The Chinese are praying we recuperate fast, even if they lose value on their one-trillion-or-so in the Treasury notes they hold.)

Oddly (and logically), Iran’s horse in Iraq isn’t the Shia state. They have that one. Iran’s horse is the Sunni. In Afghanistan: it’d be the Pashtun - - the Taliban, that is. But this is only theoretical for, again, Iran cannot do it alone. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently (before the G-20 meeting) had called on the Taliban to shed their weapons and accept the Afghan Constitution. He had been paving the way for the reconciliation that took place later in London between Obama and Medvedev. In other words, Russia isn’t on board for increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan to force their departure once fiscal conservatism makes a come-back to the mainland United States. So, for now, Iran has to stick to the Shia State in Iraq and, in Afghanistan, away-from-the-Taliban - - at least no relationship with any gusto - - with the hope that the Shia State would protect it from the idiots-reluctant.

00 So, no withdrawal soon?

- - No. Mr. Obama wouldn’t have increased the number of troops in Afghanistan had he not known that Russia would cooperate. So he’s cooking up something with the Russians - - maybe some long-term partnership. Or maybe a promise that once the situation in Afghanistan is somewhat stabilized, and face-saving becomes possible for U.S. troops and others (e.g., NATO and likely increased numbers of Turkish troops), then the U.S. would withdraw in full. You’d have to be a fool to want to go through what the Russians had experienced in Afghanistan. In Iraq - - the Gulfies, especially the Saudis, should continue to kick money into our tenure there. Until the surplus from the recent years of high oil prices - -until that dries up. That Arabian Peninsula surplus money likely is being applied to Afghanistan and Pakistan, too.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative easing and Arab oil surplus money translate into extended tenures in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. Too, they translate into increased isolation for Iran. The Islamic Republic has been there before. But it never had as many U.S. (and possibly Turkish) troops so tighten the noose around its neck.